I sure didn’t recommend it for people committed to our movement, who are calling themselves leaders of it. Again, Singer’s argument, this time about conscious omnivorism, is not entirely unreasonable, but coming from somebody currently speaking on behalf of our movement it is dispiriting. We should not have to argue about the worth of animal life against somebody promoting Animal Liberation Now. I don’t know how anybody could look at a photo of a sow living in a coffin-sized gestation crate and not want to get her out of it, even if it’s only into a bleak and overcrowded communal pen.
Peter Singer can have animal welfare now, climate change now, or effective altruism now. Our quest for Animal Liberation Now, a quest for justice and compassion, cannot be led by a heavily compromised man who stands, at best, for animal liberation now and then. Many of us care deeply about climate change, and discussing it can help animals. If people give up eating meat daily, for environmental reasons, they might find it easier to consider our fundamental arguments for animal rights. But will their professed concern about climate change really cause them to change their diets? Check out Bill Maher’s recent segment on the celebrity climate activists (other than Greta) all riding around in their private jets.
Are Humans More Equal Than Other Animals? An Evolutionary Argument Against Exclusively Human Dignity
If Peter Singer and I are forced back into court under a different claim, we will face a different California judge. The next one might not virtually shrug when it is pointed out that Singer’s lawyer outright lied on court documents, for example, in relaying that I had invited Peter Singer, in 2019, to spend a few days with me in Los Angeles. An email trail I presented proved he had been invited to spend a few hours while changing planes, not days, all of those hours at a fundraising dinner. We might face a judge who finds Singer’s overall conduct to have been reprehensible, and whose choices to censure or not, where there is leeway, will reflect that impression.
3 In their strongest form, these theories purport to identify features that are necessary and sufficient for deserving moral consideration. So, whereas a strong version of anthropocentrism might say that being human is necessary and sufficient for deserving moral consideration, a weaker version might say simply that human beings deserve a special kind of moral consideration or a greater amount of it than other beings. One of her most surprising rulings was the refusal to grant me an extension to submit my amended complaint, from the close of business Friday until the start of business on the following Monday. This was despite my asking for the extension at a hearing at which Singer’s lawyer was supposed to have appeared online, but had failed to, though I had showed up in court.
On the relative value of human and animal lives
She tells me she will confirm all I wrote about the supposed arrangement Peter Singer had with his wife, which she knows ended long before I met him, and his habit of keeping the existence of his harem well-hidden from women he pursues – all while lecturing on ethics. Her court testimony would also cover the significantly detrimental impact of their affair on her work. I share that because we are still within the statute of limitations for a defamation claim, based on both outright lies and lies of glaring omission, which Peter Singer told a San Francisco audience in May 2023. When asked during the Q&A, “Peter, I know you currently have an active sexual harassment lawsuit in Santa Barbara,” he interjected, “That is not correct.
Of course, I am personally against deadly animal testing, even for the purpose of saving human life, because I believe in a circle of life rather than a hierarchy of life, and don’t see other species as expendable objects here for our use. These are questions that activists for the rights of animals, nature, and robots all grapple with as they use the idea of the moral circle to mount their arguments. They say there’s no reason to assume that once we’ve included all human beings, the circle has expanded as far as it should. They invite us to envision a possible future in which we’ve stretched our moral universe still further. Conscientious omnivores oppose factory farming but continue to eat animal products from farmers who treat their animals well and don’t subject them to suffering.
This site has been viewed this many times:
The chapters in Animal Liberation Now about animal testing and factory farming are upsetting to read. Were they upsetting to write and rewrite and what pulled you through? I found them very upsetting, both 48 years ago and as I’ve worked on them over the past year. But I also felt driven to complete them so people know and can help stop it. I’ve had to develop a thicker skin and sometimes have had trouble getting to sleep, but it needed to be done. I’ve never considered myself an animal lover and I don’t want to only appeal to animal lovers.
Products and services
- And then there are some who argue that even machines can be granted rights.
- In Latin America, the Quechua people of the Andes draw on the concept, rooted in indigenous spirituality, of sumak kawsay (also known by the Spanish name buen vivir), an understanding of the good life that entails living in harmony with the natural environment.
- Biocentrism can explain some intuitions that other theories cannot.
- Finally, when the horrible truth of our relationship was thrown in my face, I felt forced to stand for myself and the female activism experience.
- Can you explain your position against speciesism, the belief most humans hold that we are superior to other animals?
- There is also a case for beneficially using humans in persistent vegetative states from which we can be absolutely clear that they will never recover.
Though the philosophical arguments have stood up well, the chapters that describe factory farming and what we do to animals in labs needed to be almost completely rewritten. I also hadn’t really discussed factory farming’s contribution to the climate crisis and I wanted to reflect on our progress towards animal rights. Effectively, this is a new book for the next generation, hence the new title. If Peter Singer thinks there is nothing wrong with his conduct, he has every right to say so, but not to lie about my claim against him, whether with provable untruths or glaring lies of omission. If he continues, we will go back to court, and this time I won’t stand alone.
Inanimate objects and insentient organisms
- How far sentience extends into other invertebrates is unclear.
- In general, I think it is better to have abilities than not to have them.
- He walked out of the fundraising dinner at which he was the guest of honor, and during our next contact he quit the DawnWatch board.
- It was too risky and too expensive to proceed with an appeal while not knowing her thinking.
- As a result, they disagree about what else deserves moral consideration.
They’ve found that a lot depends on how the issue is phrased. One debate common to both movements is whether incremental larabet casino reforms do more harm than good. Even as abolitionists campaigned for small reforms that they hoped would make life a bit easier for slaves, some worried that approach would lead people to think the problem had been solved and would cause complacency about ending slavery altogether.
They display a style that is friendly and soft sell, while never suggesting that our end goal is anything other than animal liberation. In a private conversation at that dinner, which began warmly, he mentioned that I had always had good self-esteem. Prodded by him, I reminded him of my profound hurt during our time together, and finally shared an episode during that period that had damaged me severely, even physically. I truly expected compassion, and perhaps an offer to discuss the matter at a more fitting time.
Nature’s rights to exist and flourish are even enshrined in Ecuador’s constitution. In 2011, an international team of psychologists found that if you ask people to compare animals with humans, that yields a larger circle than if you ask them to compare humans with animals. Again, even though the exercise is basically the same, the way you package it matters. Many people think that sentience, the ability to feel sensations like pain and pleasure, is the deciding factor. If that’s the case, what degree of sentience is required to make the cut? Maybe you think we should secure legal rights for chimpanzees and elephants — as the Nonhuman Rights Project is aiming to do — but not for, say, shrimp.
Insentient organisms
That could have saved many thousands of lives by speeding up vaccine introduction, but the volunteers were rejected. There is also a case for beneficially using humans in persistent vegetative states from which we can be absolutely clear that they will never recover. People could sign consent statements, as they do with organ donation, saying they don’t mind their body being used for research if that were to happen. After fifteen years of peace, in December 2018 I asked Singer to stop in Los Angeles for a small fundraising dinner for DawnWatch, as he changed planes heading back to Australia from Princeton.
I have shifted to more Asian food and a favourite is the recipe for dal. DawnWatch is entirely focused on encouraging serious and positive coverage of animal issues in mainstream media, so that consumers can make informed choices in line with their own true values. For two decades, torn and tormented, I buried my anger, continued to work with him, and even, at his urging, continued to let him put his name, first, on what was largely my work, because he convinced me that was best for animals. Though I am grateful for the support I have been offered, I want, badly, to get on with my life and I hope Peter Singer feels the same way. I base that belief on the case of director Paul Haggis, who I know all too well. Surely because of his position in Hollywood, and women’s wish to stay on his good side, he was so oblivious to the pain and long-standing ill-will his sexual dealings had evoked, that he spoke out publicly against Harvey Weinstein.
Let’s hang the “Animal Liberation Now” banner over the activists fighting for it. In order to answer these practical ethical questions, then, we would have to figure out not only who or what deserves moral consideration but also how to treat the things that deserve moral consideration. This requires combining theories of moral considerability, ethical theories, and an understanding of who or what is being considered. Analogously, speciesism involves using a seemingly morally irrelevant feature (namely, species membership) to justify treating certain individuals (e.g., nonhuman animals) worse than others (namely, humans). Ratiocentrists could respond to this worry by saying that what matters for moral considerability isn’t being rational but being potentially rational. On this view, infants and people with severe mental disabilities deserve moral consideration, not because of the capacities they have, but because of the capacities they could have.
This group includes insects and simple animals, plants and inanimate objects. This doesn’t help resolve cases where the moral interests of different animals are in conflict. 13 Biocentrists could, for example, draw a distinction between various kinds of interests and then argue that the satisfaction of certain kinds of interests (e.g., psychological interests) matters more than the satisfaction of other kinds of interests (e.g., biological interests). It’s painful to see Peter Singer out there in the media this month, under the banner of Animal Liberation Now.
They seek out certain outcomes (like sunlight) and avoid others, they send out biochemical distress signals to other plants, and they “seem to lose consciousness” when sedated in scientific experiments. To him, that suggests animal rights advocates should push ahead with cage-free campaigns and other incremental reforms, because they’re unlikely to cause too much complacency, at least if certain conditions are met. Scholars have tried to show through particular historical examples how the development of new technologies can create the conditions for more people to gain rights.